Paris

[SpurMeUp]

• 17 of the 25 ISIS elite were in jail together in Camp Bucca during the US invasion, when it toppled Saddam. The army got all the most dangerous people and let them hang out together for a number years. These people came back 'networked' better and stronger as IS.

• As with other smouldering conflicts, one war created losers, people who lost everything and remained bitter. The Bathists, Sadam's people, also came back, eventually joining forces with IS against a common enemy.

• Syria helped to undermine Iraqi reconstruction post-Sadam. It is widely understood they took extremists to the border with Iraq and let them loose. Fanatics from Afghanistan, or anyone who wanted to fight the new Shia rule in Iraq (when it had been Sunni dominated under Sadam) was funnelled into the unstable country by Syrian actors.

• There is a terrible history of state 'intervention'. For example, US training of Al Quedia in Afganistan to fight the USSR. The west armed religious groups in Libya to help bring down Gadafi (it worked but the country is now in civil war). With Syria getting on the USA's tits by niggling away at Iraqi stability, stock piles of arms that were for Libya were given to religious groups to support anti-Assad movements. The US was aware of what was going on. It was fuelling Sunni-Shia sectarian violence to get rid of Assad. IS moved across the border from Iraq into Syria. They were trained up from years of guerilla warfare and got in on the act in Syria; then spreading back into Iraq with new munitions and oil cash. They are made up of all the thugs from Camp Bucca and all the other nut jobs who've been fighting in the region. They get wives, status and there is no way out once in.

• IS didn't exist in western consciousness until it started beheading westerners. Previously they were known as Al Quedia in Iraq destabilising re-construction with bombings, and then as anti-Assad fighters which the west was keen to back.

Is the only way to fix all this to intervene again? You can see why Obama is keen to tread carefully this time.

 

[DTA]

Just re-read your own post mate... This is not at all what you said in the post I quoted.

I respect a choice to stay away from a debate. I respect a choice to only get involved a little bit. But if you're going to jump in and make claims like that you have to expect getting called on it.



Again. Big book of multiple choice. Can you honestly claim that there aren't parts of the Koran that are seemingly encouraging violence?

At least you admit it's a cause for concern. Sam Harris argues that seriously troubling views exist in much more than just a fringe of the Muslim population. It's difficult not to take his arguments seriously.



There are actually good reasons to believe that less religion would make the world a better place. It's not hard to seek out the argumentation or evidence. I can promise you it's a lot better than just a simple analogy.

Do you actually believe this kind of argument is convincing in a serious discussion about the benefits and downsides associated with religion?

On your last point, someone made an analogy... so i made one as well.

Now let me ask you a direct question.

Imagine we know of a 15 year old muslim kid that would be at the risk of being radicalised, he is not radical now but he has traits (whatever they may be) that could see him radicalised in the future.

If he isnt radicallised he will lead a normal life have a couple of kids, pay his taxes. Etc.

If he is radicalised he will somehow get his hands on a nuclear bomb.

Who do you want to talk to this kid, someone like @scaramanga who will tell him he believes in the spaghetti monster. All religion is wrong and he is basically brain washed and dumb as muslim and those of wider faith are. Or someone like @LutonSpurs who is a moderate muslim that could guide him in interperating the Koran in a possitive and peaceful way.

No other options, you only have Scara or Luton, and its based on what we know about them on here?

Which one is it and why?

 

[glorygloryeze]

To understand all this, to understand ISIS, religion is actually way down on the list. Politics, history, instability and power are the keys to understanding what is going on in the Middle East now. Yes a cause needs a rationale, but religion is not the driver. Ireland is an example, there were religious undertones to sectarian violence, but far more important were those divides in society and the history of them. Same applies to what is happening in Syria and Iraq with IS.

Yes those trying to hold onto power use religion to send young people to their deaths, but that is a effect rather than a cause of the instability and violence. Religion is not the issue. You are missing the more fascinating truth if you think it is.

There are far too many 'vested interests' on all sides of the ongoing conflicts for that to happen, sadly..

 

[braineclipse]

I cannot comment mate don't know enough about it. But you know what I'm not sure that humanism can provide adequate answers to things like creation and life after death, 2 huge questions which adherents believe are answered by their religion.

Not true. I have a science degree but find no conflict in believing in a higher being. To many learned people the Big Bang theory could be considered just as implausible as creation for explaining how the universe was formed. When you consider the complexities in one cell and then multiply that a thousand times to make the human body how does that come about? Chance? Or is it possible to believe there is a force giving order to all these systems.

Most humanists have a more comfortable relationship to the words "I don't know" than most believers it seems to me. There are probably thousands of different answers to the questions you pose, and very little in the form of evidence presented for any of them. Speaking as one humanist I would say that the answers given by religion to these questions are far from adequate.

Ok. On the big bang vs. creation issue. You simply must give some of the examples of the many learned people you're referring to. I'm genuinely curious, having watched quite a few evolution vs. creation debates I have to say the representatives for the creation side are usually utterly disappointing.

I think you will find that Scara doesn't think having a degree in science means you have an open enquiring mind. There's a correlation between the two, but it's far from perfect.

 

[Craig_J]

To understand all this, to understand ISIS, religion is actually way down on the list. Politics, history, instability and power are the keys to understanding what is going on in the Middle East now. Yes a cause needs a rationale, but religion is not the driver. Ireland is an example, there were religious undertones to sectarian violence, but far more important were those divides in society and the history of them. Same applies to what is happening in Syria and Iraq with IS.

Yes those trying to hold onto power use religion to send young people to their deaths, but that is a effect rather than a cause of the instability and violence. Religion is not the issue. You are missing the more fascinating truth if you think it is.

With regards to the stability point I actually remember reading an article earlier in the year, which unfortunately I can't find, and they spoke to a man living under ISIS and he commented that they had provided stability to his area and his family for the first time in years. He no longer had troops trying to shoot one another and he said that most people were willing to follow Sharia law to the letter in echange for the safety they felt.

Apparently ISIS managed to turn the electricity back on for the village and even opened up an ice cream parlour so that kids could have fun days as a reward for their efforts in learning the Quran.

If I lived with a young family in a war torn region for years I have to admit that I'd be more than happy to learn and observe Sharia law if it made me feel safer. Seems a small price to have to pay to guarantee your life.

 

[glorygloryeze]

@Craig_J , that's certainly not surprising.
I'd say most people around the world want simply to be able to live their life and have security and be able to go about their business (within reason).
Anyone 'strong' that allows that to happen usually has a long line of followers: It's the reason why Monarchies around the world still exist in a mostly strong way to this day (even though pledging allegiance to them should really be belittled in much the same way many belittle following any Religion these days..)

 

[SpurMeUp]

I think DTA copied an exert from this article earlier today. Its worth posting more of the article (the beginning is informative about the Al Queda doctrine). www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/15/terrorists-isis What is interesting is it asserts that ISIS is alluring to people who want revolution. Young people need to believe in profound things, to be radical, it is part of being young for many. Western state politics offer nothing to most young people (and most adults are disaffected with western politics imo).


"Radical Arab Sunni revivalism, which Isis now spearheads, is a dynamic, revolutionary countercultural movement of world historic proportions, with the largest and most diverse volunteer fighting force since the second world war. In less than two years, it has created a dominion over hundreds of thousands of square kilometres and millions of people. Despite being attacked on all sides by internal and external foes, it has not been degraded to any appreciable degree, while rooting ever stronger in areas it controls and expanding its influence in deepening pockets throughout Eurasia.

Simply treating Isis as a form of “terrorism” or “violent extremism” masks the menace. Merely dismissing it as “nihilistic” reflects a wilful and dangerous avoidance of trying to comprehend, and deal with, its profoundly alluring moral mission to change and save the world. And the constant refrain that Isis seeks to turn back history to the Middle Ages is no more compelling than a claim that the Tea Party movement wants everything the way it was in 1776. The truth is more complicated. As Abu Mousa, Isis’s press officer in Raqqa, put it: “We are not sending people back to the time of the carrier pigeon. On the contrary, we will benefit from development. But in a way that doesn’t contradict the religion.”

 

[Craig_J]

@Craig_J , that's certainly not surprising.
I'd say most people around the world want simply to be able to live their life and have security and be able to go about their business (within reason).
Anyone 'strong' that allows that to happen usually has a long line of followers: It's the reason why Monarchies around the world still exist in a mostly strong way to this day (even though pledging allegiance to them should really be belittled in much the same way many belittle following any Religion these days..)

Agreed.

I do feel on the whole that the west mostly ignores the 'positive' propaganda that groups like these produce to focus solely on the fear element.

I think a kid seeing their lifes improve before their eyes is much more of a dangerous propaganda tool then videos of beheadings and burnings.

 

[braineclipse]

On your last point, someone made an analogy... so i made one as well.

Now let me ask you a direct question.

Imagine we know of a 15 year old muslim kid that would be at the risk of being radicalised, he is not radical now but he has traits (whatever they may be) that could see him radicalised in the future.

If he isnt radicallised he will lead a normal life have a couple of kids, pay his taxes. Etc.

If he is radicalised he will somehow get his hands on a nuclear bomb.

Who do you want to talk to this kid, someone like @scaramanga who will tell him he believes in the spaghetti monster. All religion is wrong and he is basically brain washed and dumb as muslim and those of wider faith are. Or someone like @LutonSpurs who is a moderate muslim that could guide him in interperating the Koran in a possitive and peaceful way.

No other options, you only have Scara or Luton, and its based on what we know about them on here?

Which one is it and why?

The analogy you refer to is the one that explained the difference between "the end of religion would mean the end of conflict" and "less religion would be good for the world". Yeah. That was a good analogy explaining a very basic point. I don't think that's in the same ballpark as boiling religion down to hammers and screwdrivers.

What seems likely to me is that just about every extremist we know will have had religious moderates in their lives. Seemingly with not quite enough of an effect. Of course that only tells part of the story as we don't know how many other people could have been turned to extremism without the involvement of key moderate individuals, and Luton seems like an excellent influence on someone like that. What seems certain is that many young men are not radicalized until quite a bit later in their lives, though some are obviously reached at a younger age. Is someone like Luton capable of not only turning our young friend/enemy away from the radicals at this point, but inoculate him from future such efforts? Again I would point to the moderate influences surely in the lives of extremists at various parts of their lives and say perhaps not. Not to underestimate Luton.

I don't think it's true that every extremist has had a Scara to talk to, very far from it. If the 15 year old was actually willing to listen to Scara and give him the time of day I think Scara could be rather effective in your scenario. It's surprisingly common to talk to atheists with religious parents who will name some of the sources Scara would without doubt present to our young potential friend/enemy as one of the main reasons for their deconversion. And teenagers are quite receptive to messages that question the autority of their parents in a somewhat rash fashion, I don't know if you've noticed or not. The risk of course is that Scara would say something that would make our young friend/enemy distance himself from both Scara and his opinions.

In the real world, away from hypothetical nuclear weapons and false dichotomies (presenting only two options when in reality there are more) most young men are exposed to various people. I think many approaches are needed and helpful for people in different situations. There's a need for both. Also away from your hypothetical situation a lot more than religious extremism is problematic. To me if Luton really reached our young man he would become a kind religious moderate. If Scara really reached our young man he would become an atheist and a sceptic. A more significant step in the right direction from where I'm sitting. Though I certainly don't expect you to agree with me on that.

 

[braineclipse]

With regards to the stability point I actually remember reading an article earlier in the year, which unfortunately I can't find, and they spoke to a man living under ISIS and he commented that they had provided stability to his area and his family for the first time in years. He no longer had troops trying to shoot one another and he said that most people were willing to follow Sharia law to the letter in echange for the safety they felt.

Apparently ISIS managed to turn the electricity back on for the village and even opened up an ice cream parlour so that kids could have fun days as a reward for their efforts in learning the Quran.

If I lived with a young family in a war torn region for years I have to admit that I'd be more than happy to learn and observe Sharia law if it made me feel safer. Seems a small price to have to pay to guarantee your life.

And Mussolini made the trains run on time... (barely avoiding Godwining myself at the end of this discussion for today on my part)

I can certainly understand people making that choice. I think there's a very good chance I would have made a similar choice in their situation, though I wish to think that I would be braver there's really no way to know from the outside.

For me it's more an argument for knowing how to turn the lights on during a military intervention than an argument for staying out of the situation.

 

[scaramanga]

On your last point, someone made an analogy... so i made one as well.

Now let me ask you a direct question.

Imagine we know of a 15 year old muslim kid that would be at the risk of being radicalised, he is not radical now but he has traits (whatever they may be) that could see him radicalised in the future.

If he isnt radicallised he will lead a normal life have a couple of kids, pay his taxes. Etc.

If he is radicalised he will somehow get his hands on a nuclear bomb.

Who do you want to talk to this kid, someone like @scaramanga who will tell him he believes in the spaghetti monster. All religion is wrong and he is basically brain washed and dumb as muslim and those of wider faith are. Or someone like @LutonSpurs who is a moderate muslim that could guide him in interperating the Koran in a possitive and peaceful way.

No other options, you only have Scara or Luton, and its based on what we know about them on here?

Which one is it and why?

First of all, @braineclipse gives me far too much credit in his post, I'm really not good at explaining concepts. I like to think I have a strong analytical mind and I'm pretty good with game theory, but I'd probably need a translator of some kind!

What if that 15 yo kid became religious past any likely point of return at say, 12 years old? What if pretty much the whole world was laughing at religion for being silly iron age beliefs that have no relevance to the modern world (if they ever did at all). You have to see how much more difficult getting into religion would be in the first place then. If he doesn't become religious, he doesn't become radicalised.

A very good analogy would be Santa or the Tooth Fairy. Kids are brought up to believe in both of them. People (rightly) laugh at the idea of a sound-minded adult believing in those things.

That doesn't entrench belief in Santa. There are no adults taking being good to an extremist level in case they don't get a Lego Death Star (oh yes, they exist) for Christmas. There are no violent military groups wanting to enforce Tooth Fairy belief across the world.

I'm fairly sure you don't like those analogies, but please bear in mind, there's a precisely equal amount of evidence for the existence of Santa, the Tooth Fairy and GHod/Allah/Amum-Ra/Thor

 

[braineclipse]

• 17 of the 25 ISIS elite were in jail together in Camp Bucca during the US invasion, when it toppled Saddam. The army got all the most dangerous people and let them hang out together for a number years. These people came back 'networked' better and stronger as IS.

• As with other smouldering conflicts, one war created losers, people who lost everything and remained bitter. The Bathists, Sadam's people, also came back, eventually joining forces with IS against a common enemy.

• Syria helped to undermine Iraqi reconstruction post-Sadam. It is widely understood they took extremists to the border with Iraq and let them loose. Fanatics from Afghanistan, or anyone who wanted to fight the new Shia rule in Iraq (when it had been Sunni dominated under Sadam) was funnelled into the unstable country by Syrian actors.

• There is a terrible history of state 'intervention'. For example, US training of Al Quedia in Afganistan to fight the USSR. The west armed religious groups in Libya to help bring down Gadafi (it worked but the country is now in civil war). With Syria getting on the USA's tits by niggling away at Iraqi stability, stock piles of arms that were for Libya were given to religious groups to support anti-Assad movements. The US was aware of what was going on. It was fuelling Sunni-Shia sectarian violence to get rid of Assad. IS moved across the border from Iraq into Syria. They were trained up from years of guerilla warfare and got in on the act in Syria; then spreading back into Iraq with new munitions and oil cash. They are made up of all the thugs from Camp Bucca and all the other nut jobs who've been fighting in the region. They get wives, status and there is no way out once in.

• IS didn't exist in western consciousness until it started beheading westerners. Previously they were known as Al Quedia in Iraq destabilising re-construction with bombings, and then as anti-Assad fighters which the west was keen to back.

Is the only way to fix all this to intervene again? You can see why Obama is keen to tread carefully this time.

This reads like propaganda from Maximilien Robespierre. You're telling me IS exists because the US didn't execute enough people and instead chose to imprison and later release them?

(Not to be taken alltogether too seriously if the Robespierre reference wasn't clear enough)

 

[DTA]

The analogy you refer to is the one that explained the difference between "the end of religion would mean the end of conflict" and "less religion would be good for the world". Yeah. That was a good analogy explaining a very basic point. I don't think that's in the same ballpark as boiling religion down to hammers and screwdrivers.

What seems likely to me is that just about every extremist we know will have had religious moderates in their lives. Seemingly with not quite enough of an effect. Of course that only tells part of the story as we don't know how many other people could have been turned to extremism without the involvement of key moderate individuals, and Luton seems like an excellent influence on someone like that. What seems certain is that many young men are not radicalized until quite a bit later in their lives, though some are obviously reached at a younger age. Is someone like Luton capable of not only turning our young friend/enemy away from the radicals at this point, but inoculate him from future such efforts? Again I would point to the moderate influences surely in the lives of extremists at various parts of their lives and say perhaps not. Not to underestimate Luton.

I don't think it's true that every extremist has had a Scara to talk to, very far from it. If the 15 year old was actually willing to listen to Scara and give him the time of day I think Scara could be rather effective in your scenario. It's surprisingly common to talk to atheists with religious parents who will name some of the sources Scara would without doubt present to our young potential friend/enemy as one of the main reasons for their deconversion. And teenagers are quite receptive to messages that question the autority of their parents in a somewhat rash fashion, I don't know if you've noticed or not. The risk of course is that Scara would say something that would make our young friend/enemy distance himself from both Scara and his opinions.

In the real world, away from hypothetical nuclear weapons and false dichotomies (presenting only two options when in reality there are more) most young men are exposed to various people. I think many approaches are needed and helpful for people in different situations. There's a need for both. Also away from your hypothetical situation a lot more than religious extremism is problematic. To me if Luton really reached our young man he would become a kind religious moderate. If Scara really reached our young man he would become an atheist and a sceptic. A more significant step in the right direction from where I'm sitting. Though I certainly don't expect you to agree with me on that.

Comparing religion to a tool is actually very apt to this debate as is the premise about who that tool is in the hands of, but whatever dude.

As for @scaramanga and our friend/enemy. He maybe a great influence on him if he decides to mentor him or approach his time with him delicately and makes him think.... but thats not what he is proposing in this thread is it? He is going call him fudging idiot and call his beliefs stupid then get chich to run in covered in custurd.

Not sure thats the right way to go to be honest.

 

[SpurMeUp]

@braineclipse It's just a fact. We were talking about how and why IS came to be. With 17 of their core leadership having been brought together in this camp, I think its a point worth noting in the formation of IS.

As to whether the US should have executed them, in hindsight, of course! The US are spending billions trying to do just that now - along with ourselves and other allies.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Comparing religion to a tool is actually very apt to this debate as is the premise about who that tool is in the hands of, but whatever dude.

As for @scaramanga and our friend/enemy. He maybe a great influence on him if he decides to mentor him or approach his time with him delicately and makes him think.... but thats not what he is proposing in this thread is it? He is going call him fudgeing idiot and call his beliefs stupid then get chich to run in covered in custurd.

Not sure thats the right way to go to be honest.

Did you write that with a straight face?
Through all the horror being spoken about in this thread, the wit and humour by many has been glorious, esp @Danishfurniturelover (although i have to admit i cannot always tell if he is serious or drunk when he types..)

 

[Craig_J]

This may have been posted already but I thought this was a good read, especially seeing as it's from a former ISIS hostage:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...mbs-hostage-syria-islamic-state-paris-attacks

 

[scaramanga]

@braineclipse It's just a fact. We were talking about how and why IS came to be. With 17 of their core leadership having been brought together in this camp, I think its a point worth noting in the formation of IS.

As to whether the US should have executed them, in hindsight, of course! The US are spending billions trying to do just that now - along with ourselves and other allies.

I'm not sure I like the idea of executing someone for something they may or may not do in the future.

Are you Theresa May?

 

[SpurMeUp]

I'm not sure I like the idea of executing someone for something they may or may not do in the future.

Are you Theresa May?

I thought it was the kind of comment that you would make!

It is one of those difficult ones. Of course morally you shouldn't...you'd send them to Guantanamo instead! Mentioning Cuba, Fidel Castro solved the problem by releasing Cuban prisoners into the US, when the US welcomed Cuban dissidents.

It certainly would've been wise not to let them all hang out and out-radicalise each other, at their own leisure. But executing them, in hindsight, would have saved many lives. Of course they were imprisoned as they had already done something. Many were later broken out of Iraqi prisons (after the US left) by their old inmate friends who had been released.

 

[DTA]

Did you write that with a straight face?
Through all the horror being spoken about in this thread, the wit and humour by many has been glorious, esp @Danishfurniturelover (although i have to admit i cannot always tell if he is serious or drunk when he types..)

Nah just trying to bring a little humour in to what is a bleak situation, and some what tiresome back and forth between me and @braineclipse. I hope no one was offended. Chich loved it @Danishfurniturelover

 

[Robspur12]

It was really heartbreaking to read the message on Facebook from the journalist whose wife was killed during the bataclan siege leaving him to bring up his 17 month old child. The story bore a striking similarity to a story that I watched earlier this year which showed a Syrian child no more than 3 years old whose house had been blown up, his mother and older brother killed instantly and him burnt so badly he could not sleep because of his physical pain. All he had left was his dad who was out when the bomb hit.

So to all this carnage what should our response be? The French, in the aftermath of the Paris bombings launched further air strikes against ISIl. Does this not perpetuate the problem? I have no idea what we should do next, neither do the politicians it seems. What I am sure about though is that there will be a lot more bloodshed and tragedy.